Text Size

-

+

reset

Toobin’s comments on the health care debate before the Supreme Court have routinely set the tone of the media’s coverage in the past few weeks, especially his characterization of the court hearings as a “train wreck” and “plane wreck” for the White House after critical questioning from some of the justices. Toobin’s remarks have also been rebuffed by top Democrats in Congress, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).

Meanwhile, Toobin also chipped away at the “meaningless line” between law and politics Thursday morning.

He said he had “devoted” his career to trying prove that the line between law and politics is essentially nonexistent when it comes to cases related to divisive issues such as abortion and affirmative action.

“These are essentially political decisions being made by individuals who wear black robes,” he said. “I think the more we recognize that and the more we eliminate this artificial line — this sort of idealistic but really meaningless line — between law and politics the better because that’s the way I think the world works.”

Really Toobin??? Clearly you missed the rest of his statement which is a slap in the face to what these judges are Constitutionally appointed to do once a case comes before them. Obama used the term "unprecedented". Look that term up. Clearly a man who was a Constitutional professor has no clue what he even taught. Con Law 101 taught Marbury - the first example of this even within the domain of the Founders. I'm shocked YOU would throw a hissy fit about this. It seems we have TWO constitutional professors who have no notion of the history of the court or of the courts' duties.

You can begin with Scalia. In the oral argument, he brought up the Cornhusker Kickback. This was a provision of the ACA which never made it into the law. Why is a judge concerned with a matter which clearly is not at issue? Next, you can move on to Silent Clarence. His wife is raising money for her lobbying group and sends out a letter claiming President Obama is a tyrant. But it does not stop there. For years he omitted his wife's income she made as a result of her lobbying efforts from his judicial disclosure forms. He signed these forms under penalties of perjury. So why does it not surprise me, a panel of Republican appointed circuit judges throws a hissy fit. For all you wingnuts out there. Please cite the court rule which allows a judge to dictate the exact manner of a response. After all, you are concerned that judges should always follow the law, aren't you?

And these people have a job for life and cannot be questioned. They don't have to fear impeachment because of the bitter political climate in Congress. They fear noone for life. They have U.S. Marshall protection so they have body guards twenty four/seven.

What is wrong with that picture. Everyone should have a little fear in them.

Mr. Toobin...you probably don't realize it but you are supposed to be a professional analyst and yet by making statements like the one you made you have shown exactly how un-professional you are and your hatred for the judicial system. You are no better than the people you accuse of being "out to get" the president. Mr. Obama critized the Supreme Court members at his State of the Union address and embarrassed them....could it be he was out to get them because they didn't rule the way he thought they should. He should have been happy...the Supreme Court ruled in the union's favor. Then to do exactly the opposite and set up a PAC with Bill Maher, one of the most anti-woman people in the world is beyond belief. Mr. Toobin, I would advise you to try to act a little professional at least.

You can begin with Scalia. In the oral argument, he brought up the Cornhusker Kickback. This was a provision of the ACA which never made it into the law. Why is a judge concerned with a matter which clearly is not at issue?

-------------------------------------------------------------

Because it is an excellent illustration of how the sausage was made, and the context in which Obamacare provisions were included in the final bill.

After accusing a federal appellate court panel of throwing a “hissy fit” about President Barack Obama, outspoken CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said Thursday that the order requiring the president to explain his beliefs about judicial review was a “disgrace” and he called some Republican judges “deranged by their hatred for the president.”

And you're comments Mr. Toobin? Are they not full of hate?

At least all future comments from Mr. Toobin can be viewed in the context of his obvious bias.

The big eared supposed former constitutional law scholar basically threatened the "unelected" SCOTUS judges and daring them to overturn the Unconstitutional healthcare law that was jammed through by a thin majority in the middle of the night on Christmas eve.

The Federal judges are just trying to make sure that the guy who is POTUS "Understands" what the three branches and the separation of Government is.

Memo to chalons: Obviously, you never passed Poli-Sci 101. Courts do not debate the wisdom of a law. This is the legislature's prerogative. A court's function is to rule on whether the law is constitutional or not (unless the law is being challenged on procedural grounds, which is was not in this case). As a result, how the "sausage was made" is not an issue. Scalia's question clearly demonstrates he is allowing politics to enter his decision making process. As a conservative, you should be very concerned when this occurs because it threatens the independence of the judiciary.

Mr. Toobin...you probably don't realize it but you are supposed to be a professional analyst and yet by making statements like the one you made you have shown exactly how un-professional you are and your hatred for the judicial system. You are no better than the people you accuse of being "out to get" the president. Mr. Obama critized the Supreme Court members at his State of the Union address and embarrassed them....could it be he was out to get them because they didn't rule the way he thought they should. He should have been happy...the Supreme Court ruled in the union's favor. Then to do exactly the opposite and set up a PAC with Bill Maher, one of the most anti-woman people in the world is beyond belief. Mr. Toobin, I would advise you to try to act a little professional at least.

Most media people like Toobin really don't have a clue about what being professional really is. They all just feed off themselves and have rationalized their ideology as being the true barometer of truth. They think feelings are way more important than facts and logic which make them an easy tool for Obama, Shumer, Pelosi, Reid, et al.

These judges are a disgrace! I guess the righties don't mind judicial activisim when it's their side doing it. Again, what a bunch of disgusting hypocrites. The unprofessionalism of these clowns is an afront to what the judicial is supposed to stand for.

I think Clarence Thomas never should have been appointed to that seat. GWB 41 needed a black man to replace Thurgood Marchall and that is all conservatives can come up with. A pathetic, ill prepared, person with lack of experienced who would follow Scalia into hell. He is more partisan than constitutional scholar.

"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said at a news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

"And I'd just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law," Obama said.

"Well, this is a good example, and I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step," President Obama.

If Jeffrey Toobin is going to quote the President then he should put the whole quote in his article and not become the NBC or ABC of the printed word. The final vote on the Affordable Health Care for America Act in the House of Representatives was 219-212. It is really laughable that the President thinks that the vote in the House was a strong majority.

Who will serve the purpose of insuring the congress and the executive branches of our government follows the Constitution if not the judiciary?

I am concerned that there are judges on SCOTUS that are not concened with upholding the separation of powers in our republic.

Juctice Kagan's question about the 10 million dollors made me think that she believes if the government can give enough to the 'folks' they should take whatever the federal government wants us to have, think Guatemala, .

Just because the SCOTUS may find the ACT unconstitutional, it does not mean the US will not have improvements in our health care , it just means it will be done in a way that does not remove our protection from an all powerful federal government.